Auditor’s certificate on return of deposits pursuant to Rule 16 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rule 2014.
MCA has clarified that Auditor’s Certificate under Rule 16 is mandatory only in case of return of deposits as mentioned in the instruction kit given with e-Form DPT-3.
The MCA was responding to the ICAI letter on the extension of the time for filing e-Form DPT-3
Further it has been clarified that for filing particulars of transactions not considered as deposits, information contained therein as on 31st March of that year need not be from the duly audited Financial Statements. Only in case of Return of deposit, information contained therein as on 31st March of that year should be from duly audited financial statements of the company.
In view of the above, the MCA has declined the need for any revision of the timeline for filing particulars of exempted deposits (receipt of money or loan which not considered as deposits).
In pursuance of MCA clarification ICAI has issued the following advisory for the members:
This has reference to Rule 16 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 and further amendments.
In this regard, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its letter no. File No: P-01/08/2013- CL-V Vol. VI dated June 24, 2019 has clarified on the matter as under:
Also in order to provide guidance to members, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of ICAI has issued Illustrative Auditor’s Certificate on Return of Deposits.
Non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) for return filed u/s 148 even though belatedly, makes the assessment framed bad in…
Calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim’s earning capacity in the open, competitive market – Supreme Court In…
Appeal against every decision of ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who…
Supreme Court recommends action against Commissioner of Customs who relied upon non-existent AI generated case laws. Supreme Court recommends action…
ITAT power to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" implies a judicial discretion to be exercised within the parameters…
Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…